Warrior General Games

Originally posted by PP

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400782 (has time so gets to his 5th, single covered read)


The QB didn't throw to WR2, despite no one covering him underneath. At one point in the game development a QB should be able to decide to throw low/high ball to bit coverage. And to counter that DBs should be able to cover under & over when double teaming. (actually this should be part of the play call for each man coverage)

Originally posted by PP

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400775

What is CB3 doing ? He should not take such a large distance for WR3 even if WR1 entered his zone. CB1 is playing man (my guess) and CB3 should know that and not let WR3 run uncovered until he crossed to the LOLB zone. It may be a result of just a bad defense play.

Other plays:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400749 - Why does the QB skip WR2 ? The QB still count defenders ignoring their speed vector.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400753 - Great read by the QB
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400758 - What is worse, the QB throwing into triple doverage or the WR coming down with the ball ?
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400831 - Why does the QB skip the TE ? The QB still count defenders ignoring their speed vector.

Overall the passing game look much better. However I suspect that the D was too weak (safeties seems to be helpless) , without a single run almost all drives ended with 7 points.

Don't really disagree with much of anything you wrote...Just keep in mind, this shouldn't be perfect. The vast majority of real QBs don't hit this many proper reads.

Also, I'm sure you noticed from my only suggestion that I tend to agree with your last statement.

Originally posted by PP
Don't really disagree with much of anything you wrote...Just keep in mind, this shouldn't be perfect. The vast majority of real QBs don't hit this many proper reads.


I know, which make the testing hard. I think that one should run some test with perfect players all attribute are natural 100. Expecting that players with such skills will never miss a single play. Such a sim will allow one to see the difference between a failed roll and need to improve coding.

Originally posted by tragula
I know, which make the testing hard. I think that one should run some test with perfect players all attribute are natural 100. Expecting that players with such skills will never miss a single play. Such a sim will allow one to see the difference between a failed roll and need to improve coding.

Players with 100 in every attribute should still make mistakes sometimes.

Hell, players with 150 in an attribute should make mistakes sometimes.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by tragula

I know, which make the testing hard. I think that one should run some test with perfect players all attribute are natural 100. Expecting that players with such skills will never miss a single play. Such a sim will allow one to see the difference between a failed roll and need to improve coding.

Players with 100 in every attribute should still make mistakes sometimes.

Hell, players with 150 in an attribute should make mistakes sometimes.

It is not about football realism is about making sure that the RNG will always come up with suceess at high probability. If you get the probability of a failed vision check below a threshold, so you should expect not seeing the QB make bad decision. And making two mistakes in the same game will be crazy. For the QB example, if he make 100 passes in a test game, and each pass has about 10 vision checks a failed check probability of 1/10^5 sound safe enough. Maybe 100 natural is not high enough, but there will be a number that is.
Since we don't know what attribute goes into the vision check, it is safe to take all attribute to 100 (not just vision).

Originally posted by PP
If the DBs get that bump, I'm cautiously optimistic that the targeting, Overrides, Open Man and WR/DB interactions seems p much back to good, IMO...Damn nice job!


I think the still-low int % chance could be because all the CBs on the test server have only 4 Sticky Hands SA or less. IMO, 8+ Sticky Hands SA with 50 catching isn't out of the park for a good coverage CB at Lv. 70. And if we don't take that into account we could end up with too many ints in the GLB server.

Originally posted by tragula
It is not about football realism is about making sure that the RNG will always come up with suceess at high probability. If you get the probability of a failed vision check below a threshold, so you should expect not seeing the QB make bad decision. And making two mistakes in the same game will be crazy. For the QB example, if he make 100 passes in a test game, and each pass has about 10 vision checks a failed check probability of 1/10^5 sound safe enough. Maybe 100 natural is not high enough, but there will be a number that is.
Since we don't know what attribute goes into the vision check, it is safe to take all attribute to 100 (not just vision).

Bort has already talked about how there is no way for CBs to never get beat by pump fakes occasionally, no matter how high their vision & SV is. So, though I completely understand what you're getting at, I don't think it would be possible.

Iron Maiden, I hear ya and that's a good point. I think what you describe is a long shot, but still worth a test. as a side note, I actually saw Iron Maiden several lifetimes ago, right towards the end of their peak...It was an outdoor show with a bunch of other bands. I saw way too many concerts back then and, to this day, they played longer than any other band I've ever seen...close to 4 hrs before they the wrapped it up.

Originally posted by tragula
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1855&pbp_id=400758 - What is worse, the QB throwing into triple doverage or the WR coming down with the ball ?

These are the plays that drive me insane as a DC.... I think it happens too often

Is there a way to provide a bump to PDs when multiple defenders are in the same small relative area? Would it even be a good idea?

PP, was this put on the live server today? Didn't see anything in the changelog, but I've seen a huge pickup in INTs (like 10 per game) in multiple games that wasn't happening Wed or Thursday.